ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN | GR NO.

148965 | 02/26/2002| PUNO, J:

Yung conspiracy sa plunder is not a crime itself so lesser yung necessity to ascertain with particularity sa information
yung circumstances and technicalities ng conspiracy”

FACTS:

Jinggoy Estrada contends that "the plunder law does not provide sufficient and complete standards to guide the courts
in dealing with accused alleged to have contributed to the offense."

He also invokes the equal protection clause in his bid to be exonerated from the charge of plunder filed against him by
the respondent Ombudsman, that he did not act in connivance with his father and others to amass/accumulate/acquire
ill-gotten wealth thru combination or series of overt acts which aggregate amount or total value is at least 50million
pesos (prior, 70m).

(Sec. 2 of RA 7080, requisites) - Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense.

Estrada alleges that he is not even remotely connected with his alleged conspirators, but sub-paragraphs a-d of the
amended information describes in detail the predicate acts constitutive of the crime of plunder under RA 7080.

In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all

ISSUES:

Whether or not J. Estrada is guilty of the crime of plunder as co-conspirator

RULING:

Yes. Conspiracy when committed to facilitate a crime is less stringent as to its allegation into the complaint/information.

In the crime of plunder, different parties may be united by a common purpose. The different accused and their different
criminal acts have a commonality—to help the former President amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.

The gravamen of the conspiracy charge, therefore, is not that each accused benefited individually in separate occasions,
rather, it is that each of them, by their individual acts, agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the amassing,
accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth of and/or for former President Estrada.
GO TIAN SEK SANTOS VS. ERIBERTO MISA | GR NO. L-319 | 03/28/1946

“Kahit Chinese citizen ka pa, liable ka pa rin for Espionage kasi immaterial ang citizenship mo. Pwede ka makulong under
Sec. 19 of ComAct 683. Nakikipag collaborate ka kasi sa mga Japanese”

FACTS:

Santos contends that his detention as a political prisoner is illegal as he owes allegiance neither to the United States nor
to the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

ISSUE:

Whether or not he can be held liable for Espionage despite being a Chinese citizen

RULING:

Yes, he can be liable under the RPC and CA 616. He can be detained legally as provided under CA 682 (Pe ople’s Court for
the Prosecution and Trial Against National Security.

SEPARATE CONCURRING – PERFECT, J.

Petition should not have been denied, it appearing that the petitioner is being deprived of his personal liberty without
any due and legal process of law. (Refer to Laurel vs. Dir. Of Prisons)
PEOPLE V. ROGER TULIN, ET AL., G.R. NO. 111709, AUGUST 30, 2001

Inatake nila yung M/T Tabangao na may kargang diesel, gas at kerosine habang nasa coast ng Mindoro tapos nakipag
transact kay Hiong (pineke gen declaration at crew list para makalagpas sa Singapore port authorities) ng Navi Pride sa
Singapore at nilipat yung cargo. More than 1month yung crew sa loob bago pinakawalan nung April 10 sa Calatagan,
Batangas

FACTS:

Appellants, with arms, boarded the MT Tabangao (owned by PNOC transport) on the evening of March 02, 1991,
detained the crews and took complete control of the vessel.

They also ordered to paint over, using black paint the name MT Tabangao and change it to Galilee. They made
misleading radio communications with PNOC that the vessel is undergoing repair.

March 28, 1991, they anchored about 10-18 nautical miles from the shoreline of Singapore and made transaction with
Navi Pride. They completed the transfer on March 30.

Apr.08, the vessel arrived at Calatagan, Batangas. Apr. 10, they released the crews in three batches who were fetched by
Changco with a jeepney and gave 20k to Captain Libo-on.

On April 12, 1991, the Chief Engineer, accompanied by the members of the crew, called the PNOC Shipping and
Transport Corporation office to report the incident. It was also reported to coast guard office and NBI who effected the
arrest of the appellants.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellants are guilty of qualified piracy/ violation of PD 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters)

RULING:

Yes. Art. 122 as amended by RA 7659 was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters."

On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any
person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters."

Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532.
There is no contradiction between the two laws. They exist harmoniously as separate laws.
PEOPLE V. VICTOR TIMON Y CASAS, ET AL., G.R. NO. 97841-42, NOVEMBER 12, 1997

“Pupunta lang sana sila ng Palawan para bumili ng isda para ibenta sa Navotas ng biglang mag board mga appellants
sa bangka (M/B Kali) na sakay nila. Binaril sa likod ng ulo yung may ari at saka kinuha yung 100k tapos tumakas”

FACTS:

The case is all about the conviction of appellants of piracy with homicide. That at 12nn of 09/20/1989, the appellants
boarded "M/B Kali" which had not yet left the territorial waters of Navotas. That same afternoon, the incident was
reported to the Navotas Police Force.

They were only arrested after 14days based on the information given by the PCG as to their identities and whereabouts.
They were positively identified by the crew of MB Kali. (Pilat sa Mata at Mataas)

Each of them provided denial and alibi like mending fish nets. Lagaras said it was his brother Julito who committed the
crime but failed to adduce evidence to support his claim.

They also contended the irregularity of the warrantless arrest (Rule 113). Police line-up was irregular because there
were no other suspects. (Out-of-Court identification: Shoow-up, Mug shot, Police line-up) – Totality of circumstances
test

ISSUE:

Whether or not appellants are guilty of the crime Piracy with Homicide

RULING:

Yes. Mere denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by an eyewitness who had no
motive to falsely testify, like the prosecution's eyewitnesses in this case.

Their right to question the warrantless arrest was deemed waived when they failed to raise such before they entered
their plea. constitutes a waiver of his right to question whatever irregularities and defects attended his arrest.

Timon even applied for bail, constitutes a waiver of his right to question whatever irregularities and defects attended his
arrest.
UNITED STATES V. TELESFORO DASAL, ET AL., G.R. NO. 1271, DECEMBER 4, 1903

“Si Quartermaster Cajillig, helmsman Dasal at iba pa, mutinied against the “Steamer Dos Hermanos” to steal money and
to carry off the vessel itself on 08/13/1903. They also killed first Engr Agudo. Buti nalang meron sio 1 st Lt. Fletcher sa
shore at narinig na may mga sumisigaw, kaya pinuntahan nila ito agad”

FACTS:

After supper of Captain Morales and others, on the night of the incident, several men led by Quartermaster Cajillig
mutinied and rushed towards them with knives, daggers and iron bars. As a result, some were wounded, also also cost
the life of first engr. Agudo. (41 crew members)

A number of men belonging to the crew of the steamer Dos Hermanos conspired together to overcome the rest of the
crew with the intention of seizing the vessel and its contents and with it leaving for parts unknown.

First Lt. Fletcher happened to have heard the shouting from the board which prompted him and his soldiers to board a
boat and proceed to the scene. The members of the constabulary were able to prevent the takeoff of the vessel
(Briguela started the engine thru coercion) and had the situation under control afterwards.

Three men were confirmed to have died. The first Engr. The steward Vicente and Chinese carpenter Chuen.

Several men were arrested including the appellants. (10-14?)

Carlos Septimo testified that while he was going ashore in a boat on the afternoon of the day the crime was committed,
accompanied by Andrade, the quartermaster, Cajilig, and the helmsman, Telesforo Dasal, he saw these three men
conversing together and heard Cajilig say to the other two in Spanish, "Where shall we kill him?" although without
stating who was to be killed.

CONCLUSION:

Mutiny on board a vessel is, of itself, a crime severely punished by special maritime laws of the former sovereignty.
However, this crime, as well as other punishable acts, such as that of piracy, which the record shows to have been
committed, have not been the object of the prosecution, and this decision must be limited solely to the crime of the
murder of Antonio Agudo.

In the commission of this crime it is proper to consider present the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior
power, nocturnity, and, with respect to the defendant Telesforo Dasal, abuse of confidence. Others who were convicted
were accomplice.

DISSENT: Willard,J. they are co principals.

MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO V. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 190793, JUNE 19, 2012
“Di pinayagan ng COMELEC na maregister at ma accredit as regional political party ang MAGDALO dahil sa Oakwood
incident where they tried to oust PGMA, her Cabinet members and high -ranking officials of PNP and AFP thru violence
(unwarranted force)”

SUMMARY

In the instant Petition, MAGDALO claims that it did not resort to violence when it took over Oakwood because (a) no
one, either civilian or military, was held hostage; (b) its members immediately evacuated the guests and staff of the
hotel; and (c) not a single shot was fired during the incident.

Under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 Constitution, parties, organizations and coalitions that "seek to achieve their
goals through violence or unlawful means" shall be denied registration. This disqualification is reiterated in Section 61 of
B.P. 881, which provides that "no political party which seeks to achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled to
accreditation."

Violence is the unjust or unwarranted exercise of force, usually with the accompaniment of vehemence, outrage or fury.
It also denotes physical force unlawfully exercised; abuse of force; that force which is employed against common right,
against the laws, and against public liberty.

Under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may be taken of matters that are of "public knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration." Further, Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative
Code, specifically empowers administrative agencies to admit and give probative value to evidence commonly
acceptable by reasonably prudent men, and to take notice of judicially cognizable facts.